JonesyOr just buy Mig-29K’s.;)
Boo, hiss, boring!. They want to get the Freestyle back in the air and work up a design for a STOVL CVL….might even get ’em a few export orders.
JonesyOTH-B radar and of course their new SOSUS like system will do the job
OTH-B is no general panacea its resolution is poor when you get beyond about 300 miles from the emitter. With almost comic timing the article that sferrin has linked above shows this perfectly. Soviets had OTH radar coverage over the waters that the Midway group was steaming in. Even the Aussies today, and they have perhaps the best OTH-B setup in the world, are looking to back JORN up with HALE UAV’s, Wedgetail AWACS and P-3’s. I wouldnt give them any great hopes of tracking a US carrier group either.
When you say ‘their new SOSUS-like system’ are you talking about the new coastal surveillance system they are developing?. When is that scheduled for completion do you know?.
Niksi,
I can’t believe how some people here are biased when it comes themes like this.
Likewise!. I can never believe how many people advocate weapons systems without the first clue of how they are employed.
JonesyI am sure the Russian navy would be happy to take on another carrier now for the budget price of $1.5-2 billion. It is much larger than the mini carriers it is talking about looking at building in 10-15 years time and could certainly be more flexible than just having one carrier as they have at the moment
Not if they cant operate Su-33’s from it it wont Garry?. Time for them to dust off the old Freestyle plans?
JonesyHate to nitpick, but I thought newer Russki radars such as the Irbis have a 120 deg FOV, i.e. 60 deg each side of the centerline. Does anyone have information on the N001V?
Regards,
USS.
Quite willing to stand corrected on that one. Whilst doubtless impressive I dont think it alters the basic premise that using Flankers as Ocean Recce platforms is not necessarily the optimum use for the type!.
JonesyYes that is what satellites are for…there just aren’t any barring a single Russian passive bird at present!. The US is working on an LOE radar constellation at the moment and the Russians are meant to be pouring some of their new resources into a threatre surveillance system. Stuff off in the distance though.
Besides, there’s probably a sonar network undersea for that very purpose around the russian coasts or in the most important areas.
They do have hydrophone lines in some locations but these havent always proven infallible and, if you can close on them with an SSN etc, they can be countered before the carrier group reaches theatre entry. SURTASS is better for passive sonar detection bacause its mobile but, to the best of my knowledge, they dont have it.
Besides, considering the radars on all those boats, some Elint or Sigint assets will have a field day detecting the fleet if you ask me.
Emitting on a recognisable radar is called being ‘targetting cooperative’ and is one of the basics of information warfare. No US force commander would allow such a basic mistake to be made. He would make maximum use of passive systems and offset offboard sensors. To develop the surface picture he might fly off an E-2 offset it 100nm north of his position and have its line of advance offset from the group course by 20 degrees or so. Its radar is still LINKing back the surface picture but the opposition ELINT teams get the wrong plot and a track that, if they act on it, sends their strike package a very long way away.
It’s not like it’s still WWII
Nope…its MUCH harder now!
USS Novice,
PRoblem here is that he scenario painted by Schumacher in the first post is far too ambiguous, we need specifics. But the answer it seems is that it would all depend upon tactics and early detection.
..and that is an entirely accurate statement in every important regard.
JonesyStar
A-50 in limited numbers? there are more than 20. and A single upgraded A-50 can provide air picture of entire EU.
Maintaining continuous coverage on a patrol slot takes multiple aircraft so ‘more than 20’ means, including airframes down in maintenance, maybe an absolute maximum of 6 patrol slots to cover the whole area of sensitive airspace of the dear old Rodina. You think they are going to have A-50’s running racetracks 500kms offshore hunting for carrier groups?.
One Su-27SM can find destroyer size target at more than 300KM.
And dont go even into Satellite business.
What surface area can an Su-27SM radar scan though 30 degrees either side of centreline to 300km depth?. Calculate the surface area that scans (about 48k km.sq to help) then divide that figure by the length of the Russian coastline to a 500km depth!. How many Su-27SM’s are going to be needed to rerun a Midway-esque SURCAP one wonders!.
they can find humans with Satellite let alone big battelship.
Again I find myself asking you whether you are serious or not?!. They can get a picture of a human from space – when they know where to look for him!!!. When you can understand the difference between imaging a known target and finding a target, that knows the orbits of the satellites, that is mobile and has millions of square kms to be operating over come back and try again.
Jonesy4 flat tops?. At most there’ll be a CVS or CVF plus the LPH deployed together?.
The carriers/LPH have other things to do besides carry ASW choppers. CVF may have rucks of extra space for as many pingers as we have, but, putting them on the carrier may not be tactically ideal in every circumstance. Being able to maintain a continuous chopper capability from the deployed screen, whilst keeping the big deck thirty miles back, could be useful in many situations.
Having a chopper on every escort may be the case but tying three escorts down prosecuting one contact, when we aren’t going to have many escorts to start with, is neither productive or sensible if we have the opportunity to create a better solution. Far better to have the chopper capability on the principle ASW ship and have the ability to prosecute multiple targets simultaneously.
JonesyJonesy, I was referring to platforms not airframes.;)
I was too!.
JonesyDionis,
Is it really necessary to list reconnaisance in this situation?
Mig-25, Su-24, A-50 reconplatforms, Russia’s military network of satellites can provide tracking, coast guard units. Possibly Tu-142 maritime recon aircraft if they have not been totally scrapped. Various Kamov helos would be able to track using radar arrays.
I’m certain Russia knows its North waters extremely well…
It is not just necessary it is absolutely critical because, without the target track to co-ordinate a strike against, your list of shooters is valueless.
This is a very simple process, a great deal of intelligence is not required to understand it.
1) You cannot shoot at a target until you have detected, assessed and tracked it. Known in the trade as ‘Where, What and When’.
– The ‘Detected’ part is obvious you need to know where it is and at what range from your shooter assets to determine whether the target can in fact be engaged. Assessment is equally obvious…you need to know what it is to know whether you actually want to engage or whether the contact could be a feint. You have to identify the targets in order assign the correct force package to have the optimium chance of defeating it. For example – a target escorted by 8 AEGIS vessels you will not send a dozen Su-24’s against alone…as they will achieve nothing…you will wait until you can bring in additional forces in a cooperative action…or use submarines etc. Lastly the tracking phase…an ability to maintain, even intermittent, contact with the target is CRITICAL – it is an old and hackneyed tactic to show your opponent enough to get him all fired up and charging off to a position you appear to be heading for…and then turn, break contact, and appear somewhere else. If you cannot keep some form of track on the target forget it.
2)Your reconnaissance systems HAVE to be surviveable. Look at what you have listed: Kamov choppers, Su-24MR’s, MiG-25R’s (are there any of these left??) how many of these have a real chance of closing a group with an E-2 directed CAP?. The Russian ocean reconnaissance satellite ‘network’ is currently one refurbished ELINT satellite that may or may not be operational. You cant even say if any MarPat Bears still fly – which is quite the point and the limited number of A-50’s they have are going to be kept back where they can be defended by land-based air meaning a surveillance depth of what 400km offshore for a ship target -wherever an A-50 happens to be patrolling?. Its a poor capability set all round and that, I am afraid, isnt something you can just gloss over.
You can list the numbers of shooting assets in service and all their wonderful missiles capabilities to your hearts content Dionis. Just understand that, in the real world, without reconnaissance and targetting assets they dont add up to much.
JonesyDionis,
You have listed LOTS of lovely shooting assets there. Some numbers I wouldnt be so sure on, but I’m not interested in debating fantasy fleets with you. What you have not listed is one single, surviveable, reconnaisance asset that could establish contact with a carrier group and remain in place long enough to establish a track, whilst a strike package forms.
Without that one, critical, piece of information everything you listed is useless from a shooting perspective. Simple as that.
JonesyIf the following can be achieved:
1, Detect, identify and track on the carrier group to get a position to send strike aircraft against.
2, Assemble and coordinate a strike package of enough Su-34’s to deploy sufficient weapons to saturate the carrier groups defences and within a short enough timeframe that the target fix doesnt age out.
3, Get the assembled strike package to within weapon release range of the battlegroup, circa 300km, without losing too many aircraft, to the carrier groups CAP, that it makes the strike untenable.
Then the Su-34 with the listed missile systems could be considered a threat.
JonesyOi Geordie…at least we can manage two top 6 Premiership football teams and have a history that we can point too!. When was the last time anything interesting happened in Newcastle? 😎
JonesyOi Geordie…at least we can manage two top 6 Premiership football teams and have a history that we can point too!. When was the last time anything interesting happened in Newcastle? 😎
JonesyVorts,
Don’t get frustrated, some here appreciate your seriousness….myself included. You should give up once you see more adjectives than sentences in posts here 😉
Cap is doffed to a fellow lifer on these hallowed portals!. 🙂
About nuclear weapons, i thought those post-war tests demonstrated (against the original hypothesis of the testers) that warships are incredibly survivable against airbursts of nuclear weapons.
Indeed WW2 vessels did prove considerably more surviveable than was expected. Thats not to say that the Op Crossroads tests showed surface vessels to be ‘incredibly surviveable’ exactly!. The 9000ton former IJN heavy cruiser Sakawa was described a having her susperstructure flattened and her stern breached whilst setting her ablaze for 24hrs. The 5000ton Attack Transport USS Gilliam described as ‘pummelled flat and sank within a minute’ and a sister ship, USS Carlisle, thrown 150yds to sink ablaze from stem to stern. An old US DD 600 yards from the detonation was sunk and on investigation was found to have a wrinkle in the hull from the blast wave.
The real heavies survived until the second, underwater test, but the ABLE test was ‘only’ a 20kt weapon detonated at 1500ft and it did a significant amount of destruction to vessels that are more representative of todays thin-skinned ships than the massed cruisers, heavy cruisers and battleships that were present!. Interesting on the water burst was a comment from an observer on the later Project Wigwam test off the Californian coast stating that a 30kt burst created a 600ft tsunami?!.
As to re-entry vehicles, wouldn’t ship-born BMDs become natural defense system for this still non-existent threat?
Definitely so. There is a considerable difference, as a target, between a re-entering TBM like a Scud and a re-entering MIRV as I’m sure you know. Currently SM-3 Blk1A looks good against TBM’s but I dont know if anyones thrown a MIRV-representative target at one yet?. Certainly, where someone to get serious about an anti-ship ballistic missile, many people would be pushing the envelope on things like EM-railguns and naval-DEW’s much harder than appearances indicate today.
Well, science and engineering tells you exactly what kind of manuvers you can do regardless of which nation makes the missile. It’s as simple as that. If one think timing is an issue, no airbreathing or in-atmosphere missiles is going to get anywhere near the speeds (or timing limited) encountered by BMD. That should put this “time” thing in perspective. Hence why Harpoons doesn’t need to fly fast….to make it worthwhile you need at least hypersonic speeds to come right at you….and then this ridiculous race car reference.
Bravo…well said that man. Of course pointing out that objective limits do exist on air vehicles travelling at certain masses and velocities will not make you popular on here. It is well known that certain European and near/far Eastern nations have such wonderful scientific communities that little things, such as the laws of physics, are trifling matters that can be overcome with the expenditure of just a few hundred million dollars.
I don’t think the defense system of a CVBG can defend against saturated sub attack. It’s already hell defending against a couple of subs, but now with over twenty and all letting lose their torpedos and missiles at once? Some may be there to act as decoys, IIRC sonar systems have problems against multiple underwater tracks….a number orders of magnitude less than what AEGIS can handle.
Its an interesting proposition but subs dont really have the same ability to ‘swarm’ as other, more dynamic, assets. Remaining discrete whislt cordinating a large fleet attack is very, very difficult as, if detected far enough away, subs dont really have the speed to break into the target and launch a decisive strike before the target group turns onto reciprocal bearing from target and kicks on to flank. Then you have the problem of a 40knt torpedo chasing a 30knt airraft carrier…never a high percentage shot unless the firing sub is very close on launch!.
JonesyIndeed they do make big spending targets, BUT, they are as close to politically untouchable as any defence program the UK has had in 30 years.
Very smart move to have them built in the new PM’s backyard. He cancels them = puts his consituents on the dole = he can forget re-election!
Sign In
